Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Dems Are Using 'Invented Insurrection' to Create 2nd War on Terror Targeting Americans

Much like its George W. Bush-era counterpart, this new campaign is the product of an alliance of politicians and government officials as they seek to gain additional federal powers to fight terrorism.

Unlike its previous iteration, however, this new war on terror is to be fought domestically.

Its enemy is not the Islamic State group, al-Qaida or any other foreign threat. Rather, under the direction of the Biden administration, this new effort seeks to end the supposed threat of homegrown, far-right, white supremacist terrorism.

In order to further this domestic war on terror, politicians and federal bureaucrats have spread false and exaggerated claims regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion, painting it as some sort of armed terrorist insurrection — as if the few hundred unarmed protesters and rioters were part of a premeditated plot to overthrow the entire U.S. government.

While inflated rhetoric is often the norm within the realm of government and politics, this specific instance is a calculated act with a specified goal, according to one national security expert.

In his view, efforts to push this supposed “insurrection” are nothing more than a ploy to “institutionalize the use of state power to implement the woke agenda.”

“It is a classic example of ‘never let a crisis go to waste,'” Jim Hanson, president of the Security Studies Group, told The Western Journal.

Before joining the Security Studies Group, Hanson served in the Army Special Forces and conducted counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations as well as diplomatic, intelligence and humanitarian operations in more than a dozen countries.

Consequently, Hanson has seen his fair share of insurgencies — and, in his opinion, the Capitol incursion was anything but.

“It is a riot. You know, it was definitely a tiny group of people who may have had some insurrectionist ideas, but they didn’t even bring guns,” Hanson said. “You know? I mean, how intense of an insurrection are you having if you didn’t even bring anything beyond bear spray?”

Nevertheless, Democratic politicians and left-leaning media outlets (and even a select few Republicans) continue to forward a number of false claims and exaggerations to support this “insurrection” narrative.

Inventing an Insurrection

The first of these claims involves Eric Munchel, a rioter seen carrying zip-ties within the Capitol. A photo of Munchel was used by various outlets — including Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times — as evidence that rioters had entered the Capitol with premeditated plans to kidnap members of Congress.

However, according to the very lawyers who prosecuted Munchel’s case, this was nothing more than a media fabrication. A Jan. 21 court filing submitted by the prosecutors found that Munchel had not brought the zip-ties with him. Rather, he found them within the Capitol and was merely attempting to keep them away from Capitol Police officers.

Another claim — that the so-called insurrectionists entered the Capitol bearing firearms — was found to be similarly dubious.

On March 3, Jill Sandborn, the FBI’s director of counterterrorism, admitted as much during a joint hearing of the Senate Rules and Homeland Security committees.

“How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on the Capitol grounds that day?” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin asked the FBI official.

“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any of the arrests at the scene at this point,” Sanborn answered.

Perhaps the most egregious Jan. 6 falsehood was the assertion that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had been murdered by pro-Trump rioters who beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. This claim was forwarded by multiple New York Times reports and even President Joe Biden himself.

Washington’s chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had suffered two strokes on Jan. 7 — after the riot — and had died of natural causes unrelated to the previous day’s events.

As journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out in his breakdown of false claims regarding the riot, “Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters.”

In addition to the many false claims, Johnson’s team made another finding that dismantles the insurrection narrative. According to security footage unveiled by the senator on June 10, as many as 300 unauthorized individuals (roughly 38 percent of the total rioters) were allowed to enter the Capitol through the upper West Terrace doorway while five Capitol Police officers stood by. One officer was even gesturing toward the door as these individuals walked past him.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that violent insurrections would not begin with police officers peacefully ushering the so-called insurrectionists inside.

In spite of all this, the Biden administration has used its influence to “create the appearance of a conspiracy to commit an insurrection,” according to a June 5 report in Human Events by Hanson. Titled “An Invented Insurrection,” it details an indictment filed by the Biden administration on May 30.

The federal indictment claimed that members of the Oath Keepers — a group of “current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'” according to their website — had conspired to commit illegal acts on Jan. 6.

As Hanson points out in his piece, however, the indictment proves the opposite. Evidence provided in the filing shows that the only action these Oath Keepers had “conspired” to take was to “petition the government for redress of grievances where citizens who believed an investigation into the election was needed gathered to say so.”

So then, why spread so many false claims?

In Hanson’s view, the answer is simple: Claiming that an “armed insurrection” led by “domestic extremists” is looming empowers the state with seemingly unlimited authority.

Infringing on the Rights of Rioters and Protesters
Already, it appears that this false “insurrection” narrative is giving federal agencies authority that would otherwise be seen as an infringement of constitutional rights.

“They have arrested pretty much anybody who took a selfie in the Capitol for federal crimes. They’re overcharging everything. They’re keeping people in solitary confinement, no bail, and basically abusing state power in a very scary way,” Hanson told The Western Journal.

The federal crackdown on those present on Jan. 6 has indeed been extensive. As of March 13, 312 people had been charged in relation to the incursion, The Washington Post reported.

In many cases, it appears that those arrested for being present at the Capitol had little or nothing to do with the violence.

One couple present at the rally preceding the incursion — who never entered the Capitol — had their house tossed, their electronic devices seized and even a pocket Constitution taken from them by FBI agents.

Additionally, according to a report from Politico, one defendant housed in the D.C. jail was allegedly beaten by guards. The report also found that those being held in connection with the incursion “have been placed in restrictive housing” and have been subjected to “23-hour-a-day isolation.”

Many such defendants are being held indefinitely.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn L. Rakoczy, the sheer number of cases requires “postponement” and “moving too fast will make prosecution ‘impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice,'” The Post reported.

In the same story, the outlet admits that prolonged imprisonment is “threatening defendants’ constitutional rights to a speedy trial.”

These abuses may very well extend far beyond the events of Jan. 6 and those involved, Hanson warns.


AT&T Gets Woke: 'White People, You are the Problem'

In Christopher Rufo's latest article for City Journal, he exposed the communication company for teaching ideas that “racism is a uniquely white trait” and that white people are “the problem.”

Rufo is a leading reporter on the CRT-takeover of American companies and education.

He reported that AT&T’s CEO John Stankey launched a CRT-based program last year that sought to teach employees that the company has an “obligation to engage on this issue of racial injustice” and to agitate for “systemic reforms in police departments across the country.”

“According to a senior employee, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, managers at AT&T are now assessed annually on diversity issues, with mandatory participation in programs such as discussion groups, book clubs, mentorship programs, and race reeducation exercises. White employees, the source said, are tacitly expected to confess their complicity in “white privilege” and “systemic racism,” or they will be penalized in their performance reviews.

As part of the overall initiative, employees are asked to sign a loyalty pledge to “keep pushing for change,” with suggested “intentions” such as “reading more about systemic racism” and “challenging others’ language that is hateful.” “If you don’t do it,” the senior employee says, “you’re [considered] a racist.” AT&T did not respond when asked for comment," Rufo wrote.

He also exposed the program's internal portal, which insists that white people are to blame for racism. It tells employees, “White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror.”

The portal also says, “White people, you are the problem. Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.”

Rufo also reports that the portal tells employees that “American racism is a uniquely white trait,” “Black people cannot be racist,” “ [white women} have been telling lies on black men since they were first brought to America in chains,” and that all whites “enjoy the opportunities and privileges that white supremacy affords [them].” Someone named Dahleen Glanton authored that page in the portal.

I am glad I have Verizon right about now.


States Defying Biden Mandate by Carving Out ‘Natural Immunity’ Exception

Florida has joined the ranks of GOP-led states that are requiring employers to carve out an exemption to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for those who have recovered from prior infection.

CBS News reported Wednesday that West Virginia and Arkansas also have this policy in place.

Additionally, “Republicans in Idaho, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming are also pursuing bills seeking to protect unvaccinated employees who can show they survived a prior infection, among other excluded groups,” according to the news outlet.

The move comes as President Joe Biden continues to push employers to require all employees to get vaccinated.

At an event in Brandon, Florida, last week, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation aimed at upholding individuals’ rights to make their own decisions regarding receiving the COVID vaccine.

Recognized exemptions for employees under the new Florida law include health or religious concerns, pregnancy or anticipated future pregnancy, and past recovery from COVID-19.

“Unlike what you see going on with some of the federal proposed mandates, other states, is we’re actually doing a science-based approach,” DeSantis said.

“For example, we recognize people that have natural immunity. … You have natural immunity, whatever a private employer wants to do, you’re automatically exempt because of natural immunity,” he said.


How the pandemic changed Australia's population

The article below clearly favours high levels of immigration. But why? The claim is that there is a shortage of workers in some occupations -- such as care of the elderly. But there is only a shortage at current pay rates. Pay more and you will get more workers. The only valid reason for immigration that I can see is to enable family reunions.

It is true that paying more for services to children and the elderly will increase the costs to users of those services but that could usually be prevented by reducing the burden of regulation on such services. Requiring that people tasked with the care of little children have a university degree is one example of the towering stupidity in current regulations.

And traffic congestion and the price of housing can only be worsened by an increased population. And both of those things are already hugely problematical in Australia -- mainly as a result of past high levels of immigration

Disputes over population are a staple of Australian politics. So, it’s no surprise there are plenty of views about what to do about immigration policy now that pandemic restrictions on international borders are being lifted.

Some urge a rapid catch up. A leaked briefing prepared by bureaucrats for new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet suggested he push for “an aggressive resumption of immigration levels”. It proposed Australia welcome 2 million migrants over the next five years. That’s 400,000 annually or nearly double the pre-pandemic rate.

High rates of migration have been blamed for worsening traffic congestion and other urban challenges
High rates of migration have been blamed for worsening traffic congestion and other urban challengesCREDIT:NICK MOIR

Others want a much more gradual build-up in migration numbers following the economic upheaval caused by the pandemic. This would help drive up demand for local labour and revive wages growth which has been sluggish for nearly a decade, they argue.

And as always there are those calling for much lower migration levels, or even none.

On Monday Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that from next week eligible visa holders including overseas students, skilled work visa holders and working holidaymakers will be allowed to enter Australia for the first time in almost two years. The government anticipates this will pave the way for around 200,000 new arrivals in coming months.

“The return of skilled workers and students to Australia is a major milestone in our pathway back,” Morrison said.

The Federal Government appears to have rejected the idea of an immigration catch-up period. But nor will there be a go slow. The May budget forecast net overseas migration to bounce back to pre-COVID levels (235,000 per year) by mid-decade and remain around that level into the early 2030s.

That strategy will have far-reaching consequences.

Since the 1970s Australia’s population has been expanding at an average rate of 1.4 per cent a year which is relatively fast compared to other developed countries. But growth has come to a virtual standstill thanks to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

In the year before the pandemic hit Australia added 357,000 people, but that plunged to 36,000 in the year to March 2021. According to official estimates the national population increased by just 0.1 per cent last financial year and is forecast to grow by 0.2 per cent in 2021-22.

AMP chief economist Shane Oliver says the hit to population growth delivered by COVID-19 means that Australia “will be 1 million people smaller than expected pre-coronavirus”. Longer range forecasts show Australia is now expected to have 35.3 million people in 2050, which is 2.5 million less than forecast in 2015. The population will also be older than otherwise would have been the case.

The pandemic has affected another important population driver – the fertility rate. The number of babies born per woman in Australia is expected to fall temporarily because of the economic uncertainty created by COVID-19.

Official forecasts for Australia’s long-term fertility rate have also been subject to major downward revisions, largely unrelated to the pandemic. Back in 2015 the federal government assumed women would have an average of 1.9 babies over the next 40 years but this year it was cut to 1.62 babies per woman.

Australian National University demographer Liz Allen says the pandemic’s simultaneous disruption to both net overseas migration and the fertility rate will be noticeable for many years. Things as basic as family formation have been interrupted by the way COVID-19 put a stop to the way we normally mix socially.

“What’s happened to Australia’s population during the pandemic is nothing short of extraordinary,” says Allen. “We’ll be able to look back in generations to come and actually see the impact on the composition of our population.”

Even the way population is distributed across Australia has been affected. Terry Rawnsley, a demographer and urban economist at KPMG, says population growth in many regional areas, especially those relatively close to capital cities, will be much stronger than expected before the pandemic.

“The surge in people working from home has made a move to a regional area much more attractive,” he says.

Dr Allen says overseas migrants will form an essential part of Australia’s post-pandemic recovery and is fundamental if Australia is to maintain a healthy population profile in the longer term.

“What’s really concerning is that the composition of the population’s age structure has become more problematic during the pandemic,” she says. “Prior to COVID we were struggling with an age structure that meant we had insufficient people for our workforce needs, and that’s even more pronounced now. That’s going to put pressure on the nation in the post-pandemic recovery phase.”

Migrant labour is crucial to many services industries including the care of the young, the elderly and the disabled. A recent study found just over 37 per cent of paid frontline care workers were born overseas in 2016, up from 31 per cent in 2011. Another survey found 60 per cent of migrants in caring occupations were on temporary visas, and around 38 per cent arrived on student visas.

Australia is facing a shortage of at least 110,000 aged-care workers within the next decade according to research published in August by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA). The study concluded Australia is unlikely “to get anywhere close” to meeting its aged care workforce needs without migration.

“We require a workforce to sustain the nations needs and at present that means we require immigration to help us,” says Allen.

“Because of our age structure we don’t have a sufficient number of people ageing into the workforce to fill the gaps left by those ageing out, that’s the reality.”

Australia’s permanent migrant intake is capped at 160,000 per year, down recently from 190,000 a year. Skilled workers are favoured for permanent migration, although a growing share of places has been allocated under a program designed to boost business investment. Australia grants a further 13,750 permanent visas under a separate humanitarian program to resettle refugees and others overseas who are in humanitarian need.

A separate temporary migration program is largely uncapped (except for limits on working holiday visa grants for some countries) and demand driven. The stock of temporary migrants - which includes overseas students, working holidaymakers, skilled temporary residents, seasonal workers, and others - has increased by about 50,000 each year over the past decade.

Economic change along with Australia’s increasing integration with global trade and commerce has helped make population flows more complex. Knowledge-based industries which make up a growing share of our economy require skilled foreign workers to be able to come and go much more than in the past. The rise of the international education sector has added to this complexity. During the past 20 years it has emerged as Australia’s biggest services export. But overseas students are also part of the temporary migrant labour workforce (and are sometimes blamed for suppressing wages). They also increase demand for local housing and other services.

“Population can be a complicated issue,” says Allen.

Immigration is routinely blamed for a clutch of problems including traffic congestion, crowded trains, high-rise property developments and rising property prices.

A survey conducted for The Age and the Herald by research firm Resolve Strategic found 58 per cent favour restarting migration at a lower level than before the coronavirus while 20 per cent supported a return to the pre-pandemic rate.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


Monday, November 29, 2021

Notre Dame Cathedral May Get a Stomach-Turning New Design During Its Post-Fire Rebuild

Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is one of the oldest and most revered landmarks of the Western world.

Completed in 1345 after almost 200 years of construction, the cathedral is a monument to both the Christian faith and the history of Europe.

But after the fire of April 16, 2019, the restoration of the medieval wonder may be taking a sad 21st-century twist.

The Telegraph reported this week that instead of returning Notre Dame to its original glory, officials are considering a proposal to modernize the interior.

Modern art and sound and light effects would replace classical sculptures, confessional boxes and altars to give the cathedral “emotional spaces.”

There would also be a “discovery trail” of 14 chapels emphasizing Asia and Africa. Biblical quotes would be projected on the walls in different languages.

The final chapel would be dedicated to “reconciled creation” — i.e., environmentalism.

One source familiar with the renovation harshly criticized the plans.

“Can you imagine the administration of the Holy See allowing something like this in the Sistine Chapel?” the source said. “It would be unimaginable. We are not in an empty space here.

“This is political correctness gone mad. They want to turn Notre Dame into an experimental liturgical showroom that exists nowhere else whereas it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care.”

That is correct. Notre Dame is not just a venue to be redecorated according to the latest fashions. It is a historic and sacred place of worship.

To disregard its original design would be to throw out the history of generations and deface a work of art. Some of the greatest architects in history had a hand in building and restoring Notre Dame. Altering their work would be like spray-painting a Michelangelo.

Maurice Culot, a highly regarded French architect, has seen the plans and was disgusted.

“It’s as if Disney were entering Notre Dame,” he said. “What they are proposing to do to Notre Dame would never be done to Westminster Abbey or Saint Peter’s in Rome. It’s a kind of theme park and very childish and trivial given the grandeur of the place.”

But the push to modernize the cathedral is strong.

In June, Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris said the interior changes would “bring the cathedral into the 21st century while preserving its own identity in the spirit of the Christian tradition.”

On top of that, the French government is in a hurry to have the restoration complete, according to another report from the Telegraph. President Emmanuel Macron wants to reopen the cathedral in 2024, the year the Olympics will be hosted in Paris.

Culot would like to see the restoration done “in the spirit of the original and not in a sort of ridiculous rupture that will go out of fashion in three years.” He noted that even the modern architects who restored Notre Dame in the past were careful to honor its history.

The Telegraph reported that there is skepticism about the modern designs among members of the committee overseeing the restoration. Hopefully, they will stop the proposal in its tracks and give back to the world one of its most iconic treasures.


Renowned Civil Rights Leader Exposes the Rotten Lies in Nikole Hannah-Jones’ ‘1619 Project’

Legendary civil rights leader Robert Woodson is an American hero who champions excellence. Woodson has taken on the villainous Nicole Hannah-Jones, who recently released an expanded version of her anti-American essay collection, “1619 Project,” which emphasizes horror over heroism in its depiction of American history.

“Nikole Hannah-Jones’ latest iteration of the controversial ‘The 1619 Project’ once again proves itself untrustworthy, and in some cases just as guilty of revisionism as the false histories it seeks to correct,” Woodson wrote in an article in the Daily Mail.

Woodson is a realist. He grew up fatherless in a low-income black neighborhood in Philadelphia. His experiences with segregation and racism led to his involvement with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Although he had dropped out of high school, Woodson overcame the difficulties of his childhood and earned an Ivy League master’s degree.

His story is heroic. Woodson is no victim; he is an embodiment of excellence. He is a virtuous man.

The ‘1619 Project‘ is rather easily refuted. The claim, for example, that preserving slavery was the real cause of the American Revolution, which was a central point of the original publication, is demonstrably false and ignores issues like taxation without representation, the Stamp Act, and the list goes on.

As a realist, Woodson is fully aware of evil episodes in American history and past attempts to cover them up. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, “required that American slavery be taught to school children as a benign institution in which happy and carefree bondsmen were grateful recipients of free food and housing,” Woodson noted. “This was not 150 years ago but as recently as the 1970s.”

The real problem, according to Woodson, is “the story of blacks in America as told in American classrooms is too often the tale of what has been done to us, not what we have done in response.”

Having spent his career helping low-income people of all races overcome poverty, Woodson has witnessed “countless Americans overcome homelessness, abuse, addiction, the loss of loved ones, and so much more to become successful, productive, and redeemed.”

Instead of focusing exclusively on the evils that men do — the oppressors who would do anything to keep the oppressed under their control — Woodson champions everyday heroes who have overcome incredible odds to succeed.

We need more heroes, not more victims.

Hannah-Jones is not a victim, though she, and many like her, would teach students that all minorities are victims of white men bent on their domination.

“There is something particularly tiresome to me about middle and upper class educated blacks who never picked cotton or sat on the back of any bus being so aggrieved about wrongs they never even experienced,” Woodson writes. These are the same people who sow discord by obscuring the truth.

It is not only the bourgeois blacks who peddle false narratives for profit and fame. Woodson Center‘s scholar Delano Squires noted, “We are now beset by white liberals who are looking for absolution from sins they didn’t commit and black liberals who are looking to be affirmed for injustices they didn’t suffer.”

There is something surreal about it all. These people are either irrevocably cynical or dangerously delusional. Whatever the case, they are unbalanced in their treatment of history.


The Consequences of Leftist Crime Policies

In the middle of heated political battles in Washington, D.C., it can become easy to forget the real, human toll that America’s porous border takes on United States citizens. The family of Francisco Javier Cuellar, however, is unlikely to ever forget.

The 46-year-old Cuellar was killed in Jacksonville, Florida, last month, allegedly murdered by an illegal alien from Honduras.

The alleged assailant, 24-year-old Yery Noel Medina Ulloa, was released into the country several months ago after lying to border authorities about his age. Ulloa reportedly told border authorities that he was a 17-year-old named Reynel Alexander Hernandez. Ulloa was released into the country, and was given a notice to appear in court.

After entering the country illegally, Ulloa was taken in by Cuellar, and was given a job at the family business before allegedly murdering Cuellar. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Ulloa on Oct. 13, days after he was found covered in blood following the alleged murder. On the surface, Cuellar’s death seemed to have been entirely preventable.

We don’t know how Ulloa got from the Texas border to Florida, but we do know that the Biden administration has been flying illegal aliens to states across the country, including Florida.

State and local officials have warned the Biden administration that its anti-border policies pose a grave danger to the security of their state, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, blamed the administration’s secretive flights for Cuellar’s tragic death.

“That individual who was murdered was in fact murdered by an illegal alien who was on one of [President Joe] Biden’s flights, these midnight flights. Unannounced,” DeSantis said in a recent interview. “If Biden had not been doing that, if he’d been doing his job, that individual would be alive today.”

At the very least, Ulloa appears to have exploited the Biden administration’s immigration policies in order to gain entry into the U.S.

Weeks after taking office, Biden reinstated the Obama-era “catch and release” rule, which allows for the release of detained migrants into the U.S., before a court hearing. There is still a policy in effect called Title 42, which allows the U.S. to turn away migrants in order to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is one Trump-era policy that Biden has technically kept on the books, but has still managed to gut.

During the Trump administration, Title 42 was applied to all migrants seeking to enter the U.S., but the Biden administration has made broad exemptions for certain classes of migrants, including unaccompanied minors.

Ulloa was able to obtain entry into the U.S. because he falsely claimed to be an unaccompanied minor. One can’t help but wonder how many other adult migrants have been allowed into the U.S. after lying about their age, and how many other crimes have been committed as a result.

The Biden administration has not discussed how it is verifying the ages of these migrants, but comments made by White House press secretary Jen Psaki earlier this year gave a window into the administration’s thinking.

When asked about how the administration was verifying the claims of pregnant women, another group exempt from Title 42, Psaki responded with her trademark condescension and dismissiveness.

“Are you suggesting you don’t believe when women say they’re pregnant? Is that a big issue, you think, at the border? You think pregnant women are posing a big threat to the border, to the border communities? Is that a big issue?” Psaki said.

If the White House was this dismissive about the possibility of women faking pregnancies to get into the country, it’s a good bet that it has the same stance on people claiming to be minors.

The Biden administration appears intent on bringing as many unvetted migrants into the country as possible, regardless of the consequences. Cuellar is far from the first victim of America’s unsecured border, and likely won’t be the last. This time, the blood is on Biden’s hands.


New words for Australian national anthem?

The proposed second verse is a rather clumsy reference to Aborigines so is hardly appropriate for general use. The proposed third verse, by contrast, refers to common Australian phenomena so is reasonably appropriate.

The real issue is why one population group is being singled out in what is supposed to be a NATIONAL anthem. Rather confused thinking.

There is also a Christian verse to the anthem that is widely sung in church circles. Christians so far have been content to use the verse only on their own occasions but if we are going to recognize special groups, the Christian version should also be recognized. There are more Christians than Aborigines

The Australian national anthem could be rewritten under proposed changes to make the words better reflect indigenous history.

Non- profit group Recognition in Anthem is pushing for a new second verse to Advance Australia Fair titled 'Our People' and a third verse 'Our Values'.

The group already had one victory when Prime Minister Scott Morrison made a one-word change from January 1 this year that altered the line 'we are young and free' to 'we are one and free'.

Cathy Freeman - who carried both the Australian and Aboriginal flags during her Sydney Olympics gold medal lap of honour in 2000 - is backing the move.

Her support was instrumental in the one word change - with Mr Morrison personally calling her to let her know - but now she wants to 'finish the job'.

The revised anthem has already been sung at high profile events including most recently at the Sydney Opera House during National Reconciliation Week in May 2021, attended by Ms Bulger.

She said the change to the lyrics made on New Year's Eve was a small step and the new verses 'would mean that we could truly celebrate our anthem because it would include us, the First Nations people, and the special places that are around Australia'.

Advance Australia Fair was chosen as the de facto national anthem in a 1977 plebiscite by just over 8.4 million voters who picked the song over God Save the Queen, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia.

It was officially adopted as the national anthem on April 19, 1984 on the recommendation of the federal government.

The song was composed by the Scottish-born Peter Dodds McCormick, first performed in 1878 and was sung in Australia as a patriotic song.


Verse 2 - Our People

For sixty thousand years and more

First peoples of this land

Sustained by Country, Dreaming told

By song and artist's hand.

Unite our cultures from afar

In peace with those first here

To walk together on this soil

Respect for all grows there.

From everywhere on Earth we sing, Advance Australia Fair.

Verse 3 - Our Values

In times of drought and flood and fire

When all but hope is gone

Australians join with helping hands

And wattle blooms again.

Tomorrow may this timeless land

Live for our young to share

From red-rock heart to sun-filled shore

Our country free and fair.

Beneath the Southern Cross we sing, Advance Australia Fair.

Beneath the Southern Cross we sing, Advance Australia Fair.

Christian verse:

With Christ our head and cornerstone,
We’ll build our nation’s might,
Whose way and truth and light alone,
Can guide our path aright.
Our lives, a sacrifice of love,
Reflect our Master’s care.
With faces turned to heaven above,
Advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


Sunday, November 28, 2021

The Salvation Army Has Gone Woke Too Now, and They're Losing Support

How is the anti-white racism of CRT or any form of racism consistent with the repeated Biblical assertion that we are all one in Christ -- e.g. Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Salvos are now clearly post-Christian. They ignore Bible teachings on homosexuality too. If you want a guide to the Christian afterlife, you will not find it from them. They now teach conventional "worldly" ideas only

The Salvation Army is losing some long-time support this holiday season in light of the organization picking up on anti-racism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaching. Reporting from Carly Mayberry with Newsweek highlights the problematic teaching document in question, "Let's Talk About Racism," which aims to address "racism and the Church."

As Mayberry reports:

Definitions of institutional and systemic racism are included while real or perceived differences in life outcomes ("inequities") are attributable not to individual effort and other circumstances, but to discrimination. Sections address topics including police brutality, health care and Black unemployment linking such topics to "racial inequity."

That's troublesome for those who note The Salvation Army has been a leader in confronting racism long before the rest of the country and over five decades before the civil rights movement. And they're asking why then should members of an organization built by the Christian faith to actually assist people of all races in need, be repentant of behavior they never perpetuated?

One can find the document through a simple Google search. The question asked above is a worthwhile one, since one of the things the document hopes to achieve is to "Lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed." There's an entire section on "Lamenting and Repenting," which is a theme throughout the teaching document.

Of particular concern, and what is a theme of CRT programs, is the idea of rejecting colorblindness. The document makes several suggestions for white Americans for "challenges... to overcome and address," so as to "begin the process of creating lasting racial reconciliation and healing."

They include:

"Denial of racism."
"Education about racism and inequality"
"Defensiveness about race."
"Little or no exposure to People Of Color."
"Become aware of your bias."
"Stop denying that White privilege exists and learn how it supports racial inequity."
"Racism is not an individual act, it is systemic and institutional."
"Stop trying to be ‘colorblind’"

One long-time donor who has called it quits is Greg Koukl, who issued an open letter to the Salvation Army on November 1 shared over Facebook, as highlighted by Mayberry.

"I am not going to fall for the CRT “Kafka trap” that my protestations are actually evidence of my racism, and neither should you. There is a massive number of academics—black and white, Christian and non-Christian, atheist and theist—who have raised the alarm against the aggressive indoctrination and, frankly, bullying of CRT—not to mention the racial essentialism inherent in the view, the false witness it bears against virtuous people, and the general destruction it continues to wreak on race relations in this country. CRT has set us back 50 years," his letter writes in part.

Koukl makes other points clear, such as how he does acknowledge there is racism, but that CRT is not the way to go about it. "To be clear, I am not claiming there is no racism to be dealt with or are no racist Christians who need to repent. What I am saying is that critical race theory is not an accurate characterization of contemporary racial dynamics in America (as many have argued). Therefore, since its analysis is faulty, it offers a faulty solution, one that creates a whole set of new racial tensions and provides no productive resolution to them," he writes later in the letter.

The letter also closes by inviting people to come to their own decision on whether or not to donate. "I spoke at length about this turn on my radio show this week, inviting my audience to read your material for themselves and make their own judgments. I told them, though, that as for me, I was redirecting my giving elsewhere. I am not “cancelling” you, as many in the CRT movement would gladly do to me. Rather, I am carefully investing my resources in organizations that I fully trust will serve Christ in truth and only in truth, and I no longer trust The Salvation Army to do that," Koukl also writes.

While the preamble to the teaching document claims that it "is a voluntary discussion guide," Mayberry also wrote that training took place "in matters of racial equity in a compulsory manner in January" and that the "agenda for the Territorial Virtual Officers' Councils on Racial Equity workshop mirrored the "Let's Talk About Racism" resource put out by the Commission and was required of current officers."


Stephen Colbert Wants Self-Defense Laws to Change Since Rittenhouse Was Found Not Guilty

image from https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2017/307/10e5f8cb-a4b1-47c4-a7bb-6fed5a831ec1-870x435.jpg

Note those fists. A clenched fist is the traditional emblem of the Left. It is a boiling over of the anger and hatred within them

Late-night host Stephen Colbert said that since Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder charges because he was defending himself from aggressors during the Kenosha riots, self-defense laws must change.

"Of course, the big news on Friday was that, after being accused of crossing state lines, killing two people, and wounding another, last year, during a Black Lives Matter protest, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Okay, cards on the table, I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law, but I can tell you this: if he didn’t break the law, we should change the law. That seems simple. That seems simple," Colbert said on Monday to cheering applause from the audience.

"If Emily...said it was perfectly proper to go to Thanksgiving, drop trou and leave your a** print in the pumpkin pie, I’d be like, okay, not illegal, but the system is broken. So, Rittenhouse was found not guilty, but only a complete moron would celebrate this tragedy by making this guy a hero," he added.

As the trial, eyewitnesses, and video evidence proved, Rittenhouse only shot people who were actively attacking him during the August 25 riot. He was not in violation of carrying the AR-15 while being 17-years-old at the time and despite what Colbert said, he did not cross state lines on August 25 until after the shooting as he was already in the Kenosha area when the riots started.


Leftmedia Bemoans Boston’s Election of Asian Mayor

Long have we noted that, despite all their rhetoric, those most guilty of promoting genuine racism are those who claim to be fighting for “social justice.” The city of Boston’s recent election of a new mayor provided yet another example to add to the pile of the Leftmedia’s racial hypocrisy.

Earlier this month, voters in Boston went to the polls and elected the city’s first-ever woman and Asian, Michelle Wu, as mayor. Wu, a Democrat, defeated fellow Democrat Anissa Essaibi George, a black woman. That the mayoral race ended up being a contest between two Democrats testifies to just how far left the city’s politics are.

However, with the Left’s growing embrace of identitarian victimology hierarchy (a.k.a. intersectionality), skin color clearly matters more than policy positions. And leave it to taxpayer-funded NPR to make this point loud and clear. The Leftmedia outlet reported on the historic election outcome this way: “Michelle Wu, an Asian American, is the first woman and first person of color elected to lead the city. While many are hailing it as a turning point, others see it as more of a disappointment that the three black candidates couldn’t even come close.” Talk about a backhanded compliment.

The report continued not by celebrating Wu’s historic accomplishment but by further lamenting the fact that a black person did not win. NPR focused its reporting around comments from black civil rights activist Danny Rivera. “I got home, and I cried,” Rivera said. “I cried my eyes out because I don’t know the next time we’ll see a black mayor in our city. … I believe that it is lived experience that matters most and what separated [former acting Mayor Kim Janey, who is black] from every other candidate. That’s all super powerful, and I thought we missed the moment.”

NPR also interviewed another individual who blasted Bostonians for choosing an Asian candidate over a black one: “It’s just one of those things where it feels like, ‘What else is new?’” But NPR wasn’t done. It also found former Democrat State Representative Marie St. Fleur, who opined: “I mean the data speaks for itself, and it’s troubling. For those of us born or raised in Boston and who lived through some of the darker days, the fact that we blinked at this moment is sadness. At what point in the city of Boston will we be able to vote, and I’m going to be very clear here, for a black person in the corner office?”

Well, Mayor-elect Wu is likely no stranger to this kind of genuine racism. She is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, after all. The Ivy League school has an ugly history of discriminating against Asians in favor of blacks.


If You Like Stagflation, You Will Love Build Back Better

Stagflation is a combination of steep price rises and high unemployment

On November 18, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the single-largest spending bill in American history: President Biden’s Build Back Better Act.

Now, the only thing standing between Build Back Better becoming the law of the land is the U.S. Senate, but more specifically, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

As of now, both Manchin and Sinema have expressed their misgivings about voting in favor of Build Back Better.

“By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation to the American people is not 'transitory' and is instead getting worse," Manchin recently stated. "From the grocery store to the gas pump, Americans know the inflation tax is real and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day.”

Manchin, unlike those in the Biden administration bubble, has his finger on the pulse of the American people.

Moreover, Manchin understands that Biden’s Build Back Better boondoggle would increase inflation while simultaneously reducing employment.

Hence, Manchin is well aware that if the Build Back Better bill is signed into law by Biden, Americans should prepare for a second stretch of Jimmy Carteresque stagflation.

The likelihood that Build Back Better would usher in an unwelcome bout of stagflation is rather simple.

First, Build Back Better is projected to cost somewhere from $1.75 trillion to $5 trillion, based on the budget model used to estimate the bill’s cost.

In October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation rose at a 30-year high of 6.2 percent, as measured by the consumer price index.

If Build Back Better becomes law, the U.S. economy would be overwhelmed with a toxic infusion of trillions of more dollars.

This would further spike inflation by diminishing the value of existing dollars.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit U.S. shores in the spring of 2020, the federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree. To date, the U.S. government has allocated nearly $5 trillion in so-called COVID-19 relief funds. And this comes on top of the federal government’s annual budget, which now stands at more than $6 trillion.

Making matters even worse, President Biden just signed a $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill.

At what point will the federal government’s pandemic-induced spending spree end?

Build Back Better, if passed, would also reduce employment because it includes a plethora of new cash giveaway programs that will almost assuredly not incentivize Americans to return to the workforce. Even worse, if Build Back Better becomes law, it would likely drive more Americans out of the workforce because they would become eligible to receive all sorts of goodies courtesy of Uncle Sam.

For instance, Build Back Better includes $400 billion for universal pre-K, $200 billion for child tax credits, $200 billion for paid leave, $165 billion in health care subsidies, and $150 billion in housing subsidies.

At a time when the U.S. economy has nearly 11 million vacant jobs, paying people not to work is literally the last thing we should be doing. After all, the U.S. labor participation rate remains far lower than in recent history.

However, this is all lost on Democrats.

Before the House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared, “We have a Build Back Better bill that is historic, transformative and larger than anything we have ever done before. We are building back better. If you are a parent, senior, child, worker, American — this bill is for you.”

House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), on the other hand, described the bill as “the single most reckless and irresponsible spending bill in our nation’s history.”

McCarthy’s dire description of Build Back Better is much more accurate than Pelosi’s pie in the sky assessment of the bill.

Unfortunately, at this point, Pelosi and the progressives have steamrolled the bill through the House.

Fortunately, Build Back Better faces a steep uphill climb in the U.S. Senate. Like many Americans, I hope that Manchin and Sinema continue to courageously oppose Build Back Better.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


Friday, November 26, 2021

The Democrats are the party of snobs

That's it. It's over. Bill Maher is going to be tossed into the white nationalist camp, though I'm sure some "woke" morons have already done so. This streak is bound to end soon. I'm sure he'll have a closing segment that sparks the ire of conservative America as he has done so many times before. Until then, let's just enjoy him taking a katana to the "woke" left and how if Democrats don't change course soon—yes, they're in for a brutal 2022 election cycle.

Why are people fleeing from the Democrats? It can be summed up in four words: no one likes a snob. For the better part of this decade, the Democratic Party has been the party of the elites, the rich (yes, they have more money), and the educated. The urban-based professional elites that consider places like South Carolina and even Morris County, New Jersey, as Jupiter and Mars have done a bang-up job telling the rest of us that a) they hate us, b) they hate we're not educated like them, and c) they care about everyone else but us.

If you're not wealthy, white, and progressive—you can't be part of this club. If you're pinched by inflation or the grocery store, it's your fault. Maher may speak of the average white voters with some of the talking points used by the "woke" left to make his point, but his commentary was clear: you cannot win if you denigrate most voters in this country who are white and don't hold a college degree. He rehashed how Hillary Clinton didn't have a rural voter outreach or data person until it was too late, and that person's office was based…in Brooklyn. You can't trust the young Democratic operatives to run elections because they don't know how to win. You can't with a generation that's been smothered by participation trophies.

James Carville, a hardcore liberal and the architect of Bill Clinton's 1992 win, said that wokeness cost Democrats in 2021. It's not the first time he's said this, aptly noting that normal people don't talk like the college faculty in the break room. Carville also said that Democrats focus on dumb issues that only speak to the elite, like college debt forgiveness. No one wants to hear it. No one, except rich white liberals who want the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've spent to earn their "whine like a little b****" degrees taken off their books. Yes, let's ask the tens of millions of Americans who don't have college degrees, along with those who have just paid off their loans, to finance a massive bailout for the most privileged in this country in higher education. It's a recipe for a generation of Trump-like candidates.

As Maher put it, "White people suck 2024" isn't a winning message. Also, when did "woke" become a pejorative? That's a key question since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to think that only old people use that term when she was asked about its impact on the Democratic Party. She was slapping down those on her side of the aisle that know her brand of politics doesn't resonate outside of the cities. You can't win that way. It went from rallying cry to pejorative and shows yet another way the "woke" treat people who they find deplorable. If you're not with us, then you might be a neo-Nazi. Offending three-fourths of the electorate is not smart.

Maher said they should do the math, but that would be entertaining white supremacy.

The Democrats are the party of snobs. They're proud to be, which is fine. But the snobs never last. Just ask the ruling French class c. 1789. The French people sure found a way to excise this snobby element from their societal ranks. Now, I'm not saying we should wheel out the guillotines…yet. I want to see the endless stream of liberal tears after the GOP picks up 80-125 seats after Democrats ignored advice from Maher and others who saw the writing on the wall.


Will the Mob Veto the Bill of Rights?

Leftists routinely threaten conservatives with censorship and violence in order to intimidate and silence.

Rittenhouse were understandably worried whether the jury would be intimidated by the mob. After all, someone working for NBC tried to follow the van carrying the jury. There had been attempts to film the jury. Rittenhouse’s lawyer has revealed he received death threats.

In just about any other case, this would be recognized for what it was: the deprivation of a fair trial by trying to intimidate the jury and defense lawyers. That campaign failed in this case — Rittenhouse was acquitted by the jury, and his lawyers stayed on. But grassroots Patriots cannot rest easy.

This isn’t the only time these threats have turned up. There is an open question whether these tactics succeeded in the trial of Derek Chauvin or during the legal battles after the 2020 election.

Put it this way: Can anyone be sure of a fair trial when Maxine Waters can threaten riots over the “wrong” verdict and not face repercussions? What are your chances when a group like the Lincoln Project can threaten to doxx lawyers who decide to represent you with the intention of forcing their withdrawal?

If these are allowed to continue, then the right to a fair trial is a dead letter, at least for those in deep-blue parts of the country who are down the pecking order in the minds of the Left. Over the years, grassroots Patriots have developed a rational basis to believe that the Left views them as deserving less than the full panoply of rights.

You don’t need the word of your Patriot Post team: Just watch Joy Reid or others on MSNBC. Outlets like CNN and MSNBC, which have lost viewers to conservative networks, now regularly target their right-of-center competition, either through hosts like Brian Stelter or contributors like Malcolm Nance (who regularly compared Donald Trump and his supporters to ISIS).

It wasn’t just Trump who has been targeted over the years with these smears. Ask Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan about how the Left lied about them. Remember how John McCain was smeared? All of those happened before Trump ever ran for office.

Ask what that long record of lies and hatred might provoke someone receiving a steady diet of that sort of talk to do if they were an ordinary person. Then ask yourself what might happen if they had actual power. Might they decide that it was a moral obligation to “fortify” elections in one way or another in order to save America’s soul?

Keep in mind, the Left has, over the last decade, gone after the First Amendment through a variety of methods, including abuse of power, corporate redlining (whether coerced by government or not), and plain-old mob violence targeting events.

The fact is, steps must be taken to preserve our rights. Part of it may involve using our First Amendment rights to have state and local officials take the logical steps to prevent intimidation, like sequestering juries. But much will have to come from grassroots Patriots convincing their fellow Americans to act despite the threats. Because if our fellow Americans are intimidated by the mob, our rights are as good as gone.


Can the FBI Be Salvaged?

The Washington, D.C.-based FBI has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids’ schools.

In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news—and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.

The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s email leaks.

In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Clinton’s own private computer contractor—CrowdStrike—to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike’s point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.

During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cellphones had mysteriously disappeared.

It was also under Comey’s directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Donald Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.

The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy—the Clinton-bought dossier—to Obama government officials and the media.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussman.

Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.

In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own “Russian Collusion” investigation.

Comey’s replacement, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.

McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.

Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical “Russian collusion” plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier—the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.

FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller’s investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of “Russian collusion,” while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.

Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.

When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a huge quasi-SWAT team—to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.

The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when it stormed the home of Project Veritas Director James O’Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden’s daughter.

The FBI—an apparent retrieval service of lost Biden family embarrassments—also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.

O’Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.

The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI’s ongoing monitoring of O’Keefe’s communications.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts.

The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.

One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat.

We can also cite the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.


The Pilgrims’ Progress – Honoring Our Forefathers on the 400th Anniversary of the First (and Most Expensive) Thanksgiving

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first Thanksgiving celebrated by our Pilgrim fathers and mothers in 1621.

If this fact is news to you, I’m not surprised. After all, there was very little fanfare last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, an event which President John Quincy Adams described as the “birthday” of our nation. But that seminal moment in world history passed with barely a mention.

This year, you’ll see more about the inflated price of Thanksgiving dinner than about the 400th anniversary of the holiday. And while it’s true that Bidenflation has made this year’s turkey feast the most expensive in living memory, no one who knows the true history of the first Thanksgiving can ever doubt that the Pilgrims paid a greater price for their meal than anything we ever will.

But you would have to know their story to understand that. And these days, the Pilgrims are being airbrushed out of our cultural memory.

The Pilgrims’ Progress from Heroes to Villains

The same wokesters who are busy removing Thomas Jefferson’s statue from New York City Hall have unfairly maligned our Pilgrim fathers and reframed the history of the nation they founded.

“There appear to be few commemorations, parades, or festivals to celebrate the Pilgrims this year, perhaps in part because revisionist charlatans of the radical left have lately claimed the previous year as America’s true founding,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said last year.

The “revisionist charlatans” he was referring to are the authors of the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which commemorates the year that the first ship arrived in the Virginia colony carrying African slaves. Recognizing the significance of the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery is certainly worthwhile, but the 1619 Project’s authors went beyond recognition and sought to “reframe” all of American history around the events of 1619. For this, they have been roundly criticized by historians who decry their many inaccuracies and revisionist interpretations (including, for example, their claim that the American Revolution was fought in order to preserve slavery in the colonies).

Most of the criticism has focused on the Project’s controversial claim (which was later scrubbed from the New York Times’ website) that 1619 is the year of “our true founding,” not 1620 when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and planted the seed of our democracy that ripened in 1776.

In a Times op-ed rebutting the critics, Nicholas Guyatt argues that “the 1619 Project radically challenges a core narrative of American history” by refuting the notion that “the story of the United States [is] a gradual unfolding of freedom.” Instead, the Project’s authors “describe a nation in which racism is persistent and protean. White supremacy shapeshifts through the nation’s history, finding new forms to continue the work of subjugation and exclusion.”

In other words, they think Abraham Lincoln got it wrong when he said our nation was “conceived in Liberty.” They think it was conceived in racism.

The new book by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, “The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story” is displayed at a New York City bookstore on November 17, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

And with the push to incorporate the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory into school curriculums, these woke revisionists are hard at work rewriting our history one school kid at a time, just as they’ve been busy for years “reframing” the history of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving.

Ann Coulter gave an excellent summary of the woke interpretation of Thanksgiving: “As every contemporary school child knows, our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet.”

She’s not joking. America’s teachers have “begun a slow, complex process of ‘unlearning’ the widely accepted American narrative of Thanksgiving,” according to Education Week. To unlearn the “myth” of Thanksgiving, educators are seeking ways “to help students appreciate colonial oppression of Natives and the violence that ensued from it.” The article helpfully includes a video of PBS NewsHours’ Judy Woodruff explaining that the “quintessential feel-good holiday” of Thanksgiving actually “perpetuates a myth and dishonors Native Americans.”

The story of Thanksgiving fares even worse on college campuses, where students are taught that it should be commemorated as a “National Day of Mourning,” not a day off for food, family, and football.

“It’s kind of just based off the genocide of the indigenous people,” one student at Minnesota’s Macalester College told the College Fix. “The history of the holiday is obviously not the best. It’s very violent and oppressive,” said another.

That is malicious and historically inaccurate garbage! It’s a flat out lie.

We know who the Pilgrims are and what they did because they meticulously documented their history for posterity.

Our knowledge of the Pilgrims comes from two primary sources. The earliest account is from Edward Winslow, whose report on the founding of the Plymouth settlement was published in London in 1622, just two years after the Pilgrims arrived in the New World. The more detailed and authoritative account comes from the Pilgrims’ second governor, William Bradford, whose poignant and eloquent history Of Plymouth Plantation, written between 1630 and 1651, tells the story of the community from their formation in England to their exile in Holland and their eventual founding of the Plymouth Colony.

Any fair reading of the primary source documentation will give you all the evidence you need to understand why we chose the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth as the date of “our true founding” and as the basis of our founding myth.

There is a reason why we chose the Pilgrims and their establishment of the Plymouth Colony in 1620 as our origin story, not the Virginians who settled in Jamestown over a decade before that date. Our reasoning had everything to do with the Pilgrims’ lack of racism. Americans have always aspired to be on the right side of history, and the Pilgrims were nothing if not righteous.

Their story embodies our most sacred American values. Like Aeneas fleeing the fall of Troy, the Pilgrims saw themselves as fleeing a cataclysmic conflagration about to engulf Europe. And like the Roman hero, they too hoped to forge a new civilization with a spark from the dying embers of the old one.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


Thursday, November 25, 2021

International Olympic Committee Says Biological Male Trans Athletes Should Not Have to Lower Testosterone to Compete in Women’s Events

The International Olympic Committee recommended that sports organizations allow biologically male, transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports without lowering their testosterone levels.

The committee stated that no athlete should be excluded from competition based on unverified, alleged, or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to biological sex in a Tuesday report. The report says athletes should compete in sports based on their self-determined gender identity and should not be subject to “targeted testing” to determine biological sex.

“Athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status,” the report said.

The International Olympic Committee went on to state that athletes should never be pressured to undergo “medically unnecessary treatments,” including hormone therapy, which some transgender people use to lower their testosterone to the level to that of a biological female.

A Sports Councils’ Equality Group report released in September found that biologically male athletes have unfair advantages over female athletes retained even after a biological male undergoes testosterone suppression to affirm a female gender identity.

The Sports Councils’ Equality Group report found that “transgender women are on average likely to retain physical advantage in terms of physique, stamina, and strength.”

The International Olympic Committee report is not legally binding, but it replaced the committee’s own 2015 guidelines that limited athletes’ testosterone levels, NBC News reported. Before 2015, the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines would, in some cases, require genital surgery prior to eligibility for competition.


Christian florist settling with same-sex couple after nearly a decade fighting iconic religious liberty case

Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman has agreed to settle with the same-sex couple that sued her for refusing to serve their wedding – capping off nearly a decade of litigation in one of the most iconic First Amendment cases this century.

On Thursday afternoon, Stutzman's attorneys sent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) an agreement to withdraw her Supreme Court petition in exchange for them declining to pursue further legal action. The 76-year-old grandmother told Fox News that she's retiring and leaving her business, Arlene's Flowers, to its employees.

The settlement, obtained by Fox News, shows that both parties have agreed to its terms.

As part of the agreement, Stutzman will pay the couple – Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed – $5,000 and they will cease pursuing damages against her business and personal assets.

In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Stutzman said that her faith was "not for sale" and that it was time for her to step aside as other religious liberty cases made their way through the courts.

"We're all in trouble – whether we're religious or not – when we don't have the freedom to live consistent with our faith and our beliefs, when I don't have the freedom to run my business according to my beliefs, live my life according to my beliefs," she told Fox News.

"Rob and Curt have every right to live the way they do and the way they feel with their beliefs, and I'm just asking for that same [right]."

Meanwhile, advocates like the ACLU have held up cases like Stutzman's as being part of an ongoing struggle for civil rights. "No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are," Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU lawyer representing the couple, said in July. "Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws."

On Thursday, Ingersoll and Freed released a statement that read: "We took on this case because we were worried about the harm being turned away would cause LGBTQ people. We are glad the Washington Supreme Court rulings will stay in place to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination and should be served by businesses like anyone else. We are also pleased to support our local PFLAG’s work to support LGBTQ people in the Tri-Cities area. It was painful to be turned away and we are thankful that this long journey for us is finally over."

Starting in 2013, Stutzman's case was litigated amid a heated debate over same-sex relationships as well as the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Eight years later, the court declined to hear Stutzman's appeal – leaving in place a lower court decision that required religious creative professionals to serve same-sex ceremonies in Washington state.

Stutzman, along with Colorado baker Jack Phillips, have become heroes for religious conservatives seeking Christian examples of flouting cultural pressures. Besides public backlash, Stutzman also faced potentially crippling financial consequences as the ACLU targeted her personal assets in its lawsuit.

Thursday's settlement amount is significantly lower than Stutzman's attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) feared she might pay. But the intensely personal nature of this case will likely leave long-lasting impacts on the parties involved and the nation as a whole.


What Is It with Hollywood’s Love Affair with Child Abusing Perverts?

The Rittenhouse affair

Hollywood's brightest stars are shining their love down on disgusting perverts for all to see. When it comes to choosing between a convicted child rapist and a normal citizen, they go all Lincoln Project. And we normal people should respond accordingly.

There's reliably pinko star Mark Ruffalo, who tweeted: "We come together to mourn the lives lost to the same racist system that devalues Black lives and devalued the lives of Anthony and JoJo. #ReimagineKenosha." Who is "we," sucker? You mean both Bruce Banner and the Hulk? Because you can count the rest of us out. And can someone explain how it would be possible to "devalue" the likes of a convicted child rapist? What was his value? Cute nickname, too – JoJo.

America's sweetheart, Reese Witherspoon, was outraged that normal people had the ability to prevent convicted child rapists from killing them: "No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe ... for any of us?" Actually, citizens should be able to do all these things in conformity with the law regarding self-defense against convicted child rapists. I'm sure a "JoJo" would totally get by her armed security; she at least has the excuse that she might have just been being a jerk again.

And then there is the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, with his pronouns in his bio, mourning the loss to humanity that was Kyle's lawful exercise of the right to self-defense against a convicted child rapist attacking a minor: "Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 27, murdered August 25th, 2020. Rest In Peace." You know, Disney is supposed to be targeted toward kids – I guess Pedro misunderstood the concept. Perhaps we can all look forward to a pretty dark plotline involving Baby Yoda next season – if any of us watch.

Maria Shriver, a Kennedy kid once married to withered Hollywood action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, had to explain to her adult son – presumably not the one Ah-nuld spawned after impregnating his maid – how it was somehow possible for normal people to defend themselves against convicted child rapists: "I'm trying to take a beat to digest the Rittenhouse verdict. My son just asked me how it's possible that he didn't get charged for anything. How is that possible? I don't have an answer for him."

Maybe a Kennedy is not the right person to decry folks getting away with murder. And apparently, the only people who should have guns are the armed guards defending your family compound. Look, I don't blame the Kennedys for using people with guns to protect themselves – two of them were murdered by leftists. But I do resent that they don't seem to think the rest of us get to protect ourselves from being murdered by leftists, too.

On the plus side, at least Alec Baldwin seems to have had nothing to say publicly about Kyle. But, of course, he probably will.

Oh, and as of early the next morning after the Waukesha massacre, want to guess if any of them had spared a tweet for the crushed kids and run-over dancing grannies? Maria Shriver did, and good for her. She seems more clueless, cloistered, and entitled than evil. Mark, Reese, and Pedro seemed not so chatty about this latest atrocity. Hey, gotta support the narrative!

In any case, how totally on-brand this all is.

Why is the constellation of Hollywood stars so all in on backing the pedos? And these aren't edgy artists but mainstream actors who put out what is purportedly family entertainment. Ruffalo does comic book movies. Pascal does Disney junk. Witherspoon does big-budget Hallmark movies. What gives?

I consulted with acting legend Nick Searcy, who does not play the pinko game, and whose new film on the fake insurrection, "Capitol Punishment," comes out Thanksgiving Day. He observes that the studios, in league with publicists, often make sure all the stars get the memo on the right take on the issue du jour. And few stars push back because a lot of Hollywood people come to Tinseltown young. They have little life experience, and then they get some attention and they never grow up. Many dropped out of high school and are extremely sensitive about that because all the executives they deal with have Ivy League degrees.

Adopting leftist poses is an easy way to get in the in-club, to be treated like their views matter, to be taken seriously. That's really what they want; the only needier people than actors are stand-up comics. They have this huge emotional void and they fill it with leftist nonsense because they get rewarded for doing it. And the fact that people expressing normal views – conservatives – get blacklisted is yet another incentive to go along and get along.

So, what do we normal people do? Well, we probably shouldn't be giving money to people who hate us. If you are still shelling out bucks for Marvel movies and woke Star Wars, you are empowering and paying for the culture war against you. Does it seem adverse to conservative principles to avoid alleged entertainment put out by people just because they hate us? It was once, but if there's a line to be drawn, it's supporting convicted child rapists.

Time to draw the line.


Cancel Culture Claims Another U.S. President

In 2020, cancel culture claimed scores of victims, from statues and monuments to food brands and more. But the push to continue removing culturally and historically significant items from society continued unabated in 2021.

Take what happened in New York City on Monday, for example.

After standing in city hall for 187 years, a statue of Thomas Jefferson was removed following a vote from a mayoral commission to take it down because the third president was a slave owner.

About a dozen workers with Marshall Fine Arts spent several hours carefully removing the painted plaster monument from its pedestal inside the City Council chambers and surrounding it with sections of foam and wooden boards.

They then lowered the massive structure down the stairs leading to the building’s first-floor rotunda with a pulley system and ushered the Founding Father out the back door.

The 1833 statue will be on a long-term loan to the New York Historical Society, which plans to have Jefferson’s model survive in its lobby and reading room.

Keri Butler, executive director of the Public Design Commission that voted to banish the statue, at first tried to block the press from witnessing its removal. Butler relented after members of the mayor’s office and City Council intervened.

The commission also attempted to vote on the statue’s removal without a public hearing on the controversial move until The Post revealed the plan. (New York Post)

As Mollie Hemingway pointed out last year, former President Trump warned in 2017 this would happen and was mocked for believing the cultural Marxists would move on from Confederate statues to former presidents.

Rep. Thomas Massie shared the story, likening it to George Orwell's "1984."


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


Amazing: Murderous black driver suddenly becomes white

Below is how Darrel Brooks initially appeared:

image from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/8LZKWstay5CkR8-yQDLJJ04BSFw=/1440x782/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/7SE32ORE4TRCC4SB33LEWOV3AA.jpg

Since then some media outlets have deleted his image entirely, other have lightened his skin colour and some have gone the whole hog and rendered him as white. Photo editing software has a lot to answer for. Identifying criminals as black is politically incorrect. The lie prevails over the truth that blacks are a very troublesome population segment.



Progressive Elites: Who Needs Them?

Grammar schools indoctrinate our young children, teaching them to hate America. District attorneys let hardened criminals out of jail. Crowds rioting in the streets are described by the libstream media as ‘peaceful protesters.’

When you contemplate what has occurred in the U.S. over the last 18 months, incredibly, it no longer even seems like our own nation.

Lunatics on the Loose

The lunacy is without end: Thousands of off-the-wall assertions, end runs around the law, and media flights of complete fantasy. The illegal, creepy, unpatriotic, absurd positions of the Left are unfolding at an increasingly faster pace. Whether it’s renaming schools, defaming Dr. Seuss, defacing property, pulling down statues – even of Gandhi, Grant, and Lincoln – desecrating church symbols, or re-assigning the sex of a plastic toy potato, the Left know no bounds.

take our poll - story continues below
Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?
The vital voices, our elected representatives, in positions to call them out, too often say little or nothing.

A presidential administration, run by who knows who, undermines Donald Trump’s “1776 Project” — which offered a balanced perspective on American history — while supporting the misdirected “1619 Project.” Launched in 2017 by New York Times, ‘1619’ asserts that the ‘true’ founding of the U.S. began when slaves were first shipped across the Atlantic Ocean.


Exactly what sort of tomfoolery is occurring? Can there be a common denominator to the wide variety of heartless and heart-sickening behaviors that we’ve now witnessed for months on end, and, on a lesser level, for years? Actually, the answer yes, a common denominator to it all does exist.

The common denominator of Leftist behavior is to thoroughly quash the opposition, ignore due process, vanquish the U.S. Constitution, overturn the right of habeas corpus, contort ‘one person one vote,’ and much more, so that we are left in tatters as a nation. Each and every activity of the Left, from tiny to gargantuan, in one form or another, is designed to diminish the strength, status, and sovereignty of the United States.

Whether it’s seeking to pack the Supreme Court, smear conservative Supreme Court nominees, besmirch local officials, overrun the nation with illegal immigrants, cancel the careers of people who’ve made one offensive statement, even made 40 years ago, and so on, all such activities have the same common denominator.

“What is Best for You”

As the U.S. declines, the global elite believe that they move closer and closer to their goal of having a ‘one world government.’ Led by global elites – Leftist multi-million dollar career politicians and Leftist billionaires, who pull the strings around the world – such a government, allegedly, will produce the utopian society that Left urgently desires.

Utopias don’t exist. They could not work if they did exist, and would end up enslaving their citizens. Study Utopia by Sir Thomas More, The Republic by Plato, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, or any other treatise on supposedly ideal societies. You will rapidly understand that the elite inexorably regard the citizenry with disdain, nothing more than serfs – worker drones – who need to act according to how they are manipulated and who will do exactly what they are told.

By any measure, the global elite’s decades-long quest for a one-world government is quite far from Americans ideals. It is so distant from what our Constitution guarantees, and so far from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that it is beyond chilling.

The Quest for Dominance

If America falls, the whole world goes down, except for the Chinese Communists. They will control at least half of the globe, and their form of government is going to be worse than what the global elites have in mind. The Chinese Communists are already experimenting with creating biologically enhanced ‘super soldiers’, more powerful than the average soldier.

The Chinese Communists have imprisoned thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in slave labor camps. They already have surveillance cameras in their larger cities to a degree that you cannot imagine. In time, it might be shown that they intentionally released the Wuhan virus on the world. Who can say right now?

The global elites, and the Chinese Communists, must be contained and, in time, stopped. It will be a monumental task, but we stopped Hitler and Mussolini, we overcame the monolithic Soviet Union, and we can prevail now if we can reach the rising generations. We need for Gen Xers and Millennials to somehow break away from the Left’s cultural stranglehold. And as they do, they will find that least 75 million Trump voters will be on their side.


Rise of Black Supremacy

“The biggest terror threat in this country is white men, and we have to start doing something about them,” said Don Lemon on CNN. For his daily anti-white rants, Lemon reportedly earns $4 million per year. He is not the only TV “journalist” who hates white people. “[Kyle Rittenhouse is] being prosecuted in front of a nearly all-white jury, before a white judge in a country where white vigilantism is often excused, if not worshipped,” said Joy Reid on MSNBC. “This country was built on the idea that white men have a particular kind of freedom that only they have.”

Lemon and Reid typify a new breed of black TV reporters who specialize in overt racial attacks on White America, accusing it of being the number one problem facing the nation. “Joy Reid is a racist sociopath,” wrote Miranda Devine in the New York Post. “Every night she spews hatred against white people. Shame on MSNBC for elevating such a hate-filled racist to prime time.”

If white reporters made similar attacks on Black America, they would be convicted of white supremacy and fired immediately. How is Reid getting away with her attacks on White America without losing her job? “For some unfathomable reason,” says Devine, “she has Teflon protection at the network.” That protection derives from a new element in the American social landscape, black supremacy. The acceptance of anti-white slurs made by Lemon and Reid serve as proof that black supremacy has more clout than white supremacy.

Not only do we have nonstop reporting from the media about white supremacy, even the president has complained about it. The reality is just the opposite. For at least ten years, we have been witnessing open season on white people. A big scandal occurred when a New York Times editorial board member tweeted “cancel white people.” Political commentator Bill O’Reilly said the racist tweet was consistent with the Times’ editorial philosophy that “white men have destroyed the country.” It comes as no surprise to anyone who has been watching current social trends. Today’s Caucasians, especially males, are being demonized and marginalized by the Left and its media enablers. The Left, says author Ben Shapiro, wants to portray America as “an incurable mass of bigoted whites.” If white supremacy existed, this would never happen.

The tables have turned. Instead of whites being accorded special privileges as in the past, what we are witnessing now is black supremacy. “More whites have begun talking about themselves as a racially oppressed majority,” reports CNN. “In a widely publicized 2011 survey, white Americans said they suffer from racial discrimination more than blacks.” African-Americans are accorded special treatment across the board. “Blackness has become a tremendous asset in contemporary America,” says Ben Shapiro. “Victim status is treasured in America, and black skin guarantees automatic victim status.”

Being black today, Shapiro concludes, grants privileges ranging from landing coveted college scholarships to affirmative action hiring quotas to corporate diversity training that portrays blacks in a positive light and whites negatively…and to the toleration of racist TV reporters like Lemon and Reid. It even applies to the White House, says David Horowitz, author of Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream. “Barack Obama was an inexperienced presidential candidate,” says Horowitz, “who wouldn’t be elected dogcatcher if he wasn’t black.”

A blaring example of black supremacy can be found in today’s television commercials. Blacks comprise 12 percent of the population but appear in 90 percent of commercials. It has been suggested that a person arriving from another planet would assume after watching the tube that most of the U.S. population must be black. Diversity is one thing, but this is overcompensation driven by black supremacy.

A more insidious example of black supremacy arose after a number of Asians were assaulted in New York, San Francisco, and other cities. An attempt was made by the Left to blame the attacks on white supremacy, despite the undisputed fact that all of the reported assaults were perpetrated by blacks. One might reasonably ask, how can this be white supremacy if blacks were responsible? An answer was offered by Colorado college professor Jennifer Ho: “Anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-black racism: white supremacy. So when a black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.”

Really? When a black person commits a crime, black supremacy often succeeds in relieving that person of responsibility by blaming white people who had nothing to do with it. A similar argument has been offered as proof that the Rittenhouse shootings were motivated by white supremacy, despite the fact that all of the victims were white. Biden himself called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist. If whiteness were supreme, no one would dare to point a finger at Rittenhouse regardless of his motives.

The notion of white supremacy gained currency because leftists have blamed whites for most of the problems afflicting the black community. Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley, who is black, has accused civil rights leaders of being more interested in “blaming the problems of blacks on white racism” than getting to the real causes. If we wanted to be truthful about the causes of social disruption in the U.S., we would have to point a finger not at White America but rather at the African-American community itself. In spite of a continuing history of violence, blacks are not being held accountable for their behavior. It is not politically correct to criticize African-Americans, and if you attempt to do so, you are automatically labeled a racist. There is no question that blacks lag behind other groups in economic success, safe neighborhoods, education, and family cohesiveness. The question is, who or what is responsible?

The Left insists that the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of white people. Not so, says David Horowitz. It is not white privilege that’s preventing blacks from doing better, Horowitz argues. It is African-American behavior, such as the propensity to commit violent crimes, the inability to build more intact families, and the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. Black women do not take responsibility for having children out of wedlock and black fathers do not take responsibility for supporting their children. Many teenagers in the black subculture hold themselves back by deliberately rejecting mainstream “white” values. This self-destructive behavior—not white privilege—is ruining the lives of millions of black kids, says Horowitz. So far, black supremacy has succeeded in hiding this reality under the radar.

“A doctrine of black supremacy,” said Martin Luther King, “is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy.” It would be nice to get rid of both of them. How to do it is the difficult question.


UK: Offenders who kill emergency services workers to be given mandatory life sentences

Mandatory life sentences will be introduced for offenders who cause the death of emergency services workers while committing a crime, the government has announced.

The law change is a triumph for Lissie Harper, who began campaigning after the death of her husband PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.

Ms Harper has said the sentences given to the three teenagers responsible for her husband’s death were “despicable”.

PC Harper, 28, died after he was caught in a strap attached to the back of a car driven by the teens and dragged for a mile down a country road as they fled the scene of a quad bike theft on the night of 15 August 2019.

Henry Long, 19, was sentenced to 16 years, and 18-year-olds Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers got 13 years, for manslaughter. They were all cleared of murder by the jury.

The sentences prompted Ms Harper to lobby the government to better protect emergency services workers on the front line.

Her campaign was supported by the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank-and-file officers.

She said her late husband would be proud of the law change, which has been called Harper’s Law.

Ms Harper said: “Emergency services workers require extra protection. I know all too well how they are put at risk and into the depths of danger on a regular basis on behalf of society. That protection is what Harper’s Law will provide and I am delighted that it will soon become a reality.”

The law is expected to be added to the existing Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, meaning it is likely to get Royal Assent and become law early next year.

Announcing the change, Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, said: “This government is on the side of victims and their families and we want our emergency services to know that we’ll always have their back.”

He added: “I pay tribute to Lissie Harper’s remarkable campaign.”

Priti Patel, the home secretary, said she was shocked by PC Harper’s killing and thanked Ms Harper for her “dedication”.

“Those who seek to harm our emergency service workers represent the very worst of humanity and it is right that future killers be stripped of the freedom to walk our streets with a life sentence,” she said.

Police officers, National Crime Agency officers, prison guards, custody officers, firefighters and paramedics are all defined as emergency services workers.

The courts are already bound to impose life sentences for murder, and can also give them for violent offences.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)